Archive for May, 2004

Archbishop John Myers: Is This Anyway to Make Friends and Influence People?

Yesterday’s New York Times profiled New Jersey’s newish archbishop, John Myers (In New Jersey, an Archbishop Conservative and Controversial). He’s apparently a greatly ambitious, doctrinaire Church conservative who’s the darling of Vatican hardliners. In fact, he moved from Peoria, IL., a sleepy old Midwestern town directly to New Jersey, one of the larger archdioceses in the nation. Someone in high places must like this guy.

While he’s a gladhander and has the ‘gift of gab,’ Archbishop Myers has no patience for any of this new-fangled moral temporizing in modern society. The reforms of Pope John XXIII are anathema to him, though he himself championed them when he was a young seminarian. His biggest claim to fame is championing the movement to deny “wrong-headed” politicians the right to a Church communion. He goes even farther by sermonizing to his flock against voting for such politicians at the ballot box.

I’d say that the response by New Jersey’s ‘wrong-headed’ policitians was right on the money:

In New Jersey, where polls consistently find that voters have liberal views about abortion, his letter caused an uproar, prompting the State Senate majority leader to say that he was leaving the church and causing Gov. James E. McGreevey to announce that he would no longer seek communion during public services. Archbishop Myers’s action gave Mr. McGreevey a badly needed lift in public opinion polls.

Nicely, done Mr. Archbishop. You’ve just helped the campaign of a man you want to defeat as an abortion monger.
votf_logo

The good archbishop’s record on priest child abuse in both his former and current parishes leaves something to be desired. The new leader of his old archdiocese immediately fired eight priests who had records of abuse going back years.

He [Myers] also refuses to meet with the group Voice of the Faithful, which represents abuse victims, because he says its leaders are dissenters who favor the ordination of women and other departures from church doctrine. Last month, he joined with several other bishops to ask the church to postpone its plans to conduct another audit of their sex abuse policies saying, “I think we need time to catch our breath.”

It doesn’t matter how much pain and suffering these victims suffered. If they hold wrong-headed theological views, they’re not worthy of the good Archbishop’s attentions. Right on top of the problem, aren’t you Mr. Archbishop?

After the reporter mentions several times that New Jersey Catholics were among the most liberal in the country and that Myers’ theological views were out of step with so many of his flock, Myers tosses all of this aside with righteous rectitude:

He was confident that, in time, his robust leadership would revitalize the church by giving believers something to rally around. And even if his detractors are right, and the emphasis on traditional doctrine leaves the church smaller but more theologically pure, Archbishop Myers said he would have no regrets.

“Then so be it,” he said.

Ah yes. He’d rather have a small coterie of diehard followers than the throngs and multitudes which would compel debate regarding the Church’s most contenscious issues. Now that’s a leader! Surely, the New Jersey Church can do nothing but flourish under such leadership!

Man, am I glad I’m not a Catholic!

Comments (1)

Six Feet Under Returns for Season 4

6_ft_under_posterOn June 13th, Six Feet Under returns for its fourth glorious season. In case you don’t get HBO or don’t watch TV (in which case you’re probably not going to be interested in what follows), the show is Alan Ball’s macabre and delicious send up of your completely atypical American Family as Charles Adams (or even Salvador Dali) might imagine it.

The Times’ Virginia Heffernan has written a slightly puffy piece about the women of Six Feet Under:Death Becomes Her, Her and Her. It posits a somewhat questionable thesis that after the series’ initial focus on the men of the family, each subsequent season has focussed more and more on the women.

The show’s gifted female ensemble — Ms. Ambrose, Joanna Cassidy, Frances Conroy, Rachel Griffiths and Justina Machado — have come to dominate the family-centric series created by Alan Ball. Since its debut, its focus has steadily shifted from fathers, sons and brothers to mothers, daughters and sisters.

I just don’t buy it. I also thought showcasing Joanna Cassidy’s character as if she were a major female role is a bit misleading. While Joanna Cassidy is a terrfic actor and I’d like to see her have a greater role, her character is quite minor in the overall scheme of things.

But I do think the women characters are each great in different ways and even a puffy profile is a welcome shot in the arm for a tremendously deserving TV show.

tags ,

Comments (1)

Perle and the NeoCon Crybabies: “You Leave Our Chalabi Alone!”

I’m tickled at the spectacle of former Bush Administration insider, Richard Perle whining to anyone who’ll listen about how poor Ahmed (and by extension his fellow neocons) are being mistreated (Conservative Allies Take Chalabi Case to the White House) by the Bush White House. His guy’s been “found out” as a liar, fraud and Iranian spy and Perle isn’t going to take it lying down. None of it has any truth to it. You see, Ahmed is a Boy Scout and never done anything but good to the U.S.

chalabi

Chalabi as Iraqi Henry VIII (credit: Whiskey Bar)

I’m also amazed by the normally disciplined and “on message” Bushites splintering into factions on the subject of Chalabi. I’m just not used to seeing former Bush acolytes like Perle ranting in fury against the CIA and DIA, which are after all, still nominally agencies within the Bush Administration (aren’t they?).

Perle mustered the best and brightest of the neocon hacks including James Woolsey and Newt Gingrich and trooped over to meet with Condy to plead their case for dear Ahmed. As for where Chalabi’s powerful Administration sponsors are in all of this…it appears they’re keeping their heads down and laying low:

…there has been relative silence so far from Mr. Chalabi’s supporters within the administration. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, who favored going to war in Iraq and was a patron of Mr. Chalabi, did not respond to numerous requests this week for an interview.

The current views of Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, are not known. Both strongly supported Mr. Chalabi before and during the war in Iraq.

Perle seems to be imbibing very strong drink that clouds his judgment when he contends that Chalabi’s “falling out” with the Americans will turn him into an Iraqi patriot, thereby causing all Iraqis to fall all over themselves to recognize him as their savior:

Mr. Perle said the action against Mr. Chalabi would burnish his anti-American credentials in Iraq and possibly help him to be elected to political office. “In that regard, this clumsy and outrageous assault on him will only improve his prospects,” Mr. Perle said.

Sure, Perle’s embrace of Chalabi will make all right-thinking Iraqis realize that the latter is a righteous, good and virtuous Iraqi leader.

Finally, I’d like to offer a prize of an all expenses paid weekend with Richard Perle in his Pentagon bunker if you can parse this closing Perleism from the Bumiller article:

He also said that Mr. Chalabi was not alone in supplying intelligence to the United States government that turned out to be false.

“I know of no inaccurate information that was supplied uniquely by anyone brought to us by the Iraqi National Congress,” Mr. Perle said.

What does this mean? Are we mere mortals meant to know? Can we plumb the depths of this pearl like (ooh–I punned and I didn’t even know it) wisdom?? My guess is that Perle means to say that any false information supplied by Chalabi’s people or informants was corroborated by other sources. What a load of crap! He’s basically saying: “I know my guy is a liar, but there were other liars who confirmed his lies so that doesn’t make him such a bad liar.”

Comments

Lady Liberty Laid Low, Rumsfeld Must Go

Moveon.org logo

Statue of Liberty hoodedToday, Moveon.org began a hard hitting print and TV ad campaign calling for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. The image is a hooded Statue of Liberty reminiscent of the Abu Ghraib torture images. This is the TV version of the Statue of Liberty/Rumsfeld ad.

Comments (1)

Kerry Tries to Win by Flying Under Political Radar

John Kerry isn’t the first Presidential candidate to think that in order to win he must run a safe, prudent and cautious campaign. I’m no expert in the art of Presidential politics, but I don’t see how it’s going to work in this election. I’m not telling him to let fly like Howard Dean and scream his political heart out. But running by not standing out just won’t work this time around.

So tell me in what substantive ways Kerry’s positions diverge from Bush, regarding Iraq especially? Perhaps Kerry is betting that Iraq will fade from view come November and he doesn’t need to stake out a distinctive position. But I believe he could really make hay by taking it to Bush on his failed Iraq policy. I don’t see how being a gentleman is going to work as a long-term viable campaign strategy.kerry_cartoon

Apparently, other Democrats agree with me because Adam Nagourney wrote Democrats Wonder if Kerry Should Stay on Careful Path in today’s Times:

President Bush’s political difficulties have prompted a debate among Democrats and aides to Senator John Kerry over how cautious his campaign should be on a variety of issues, from choosing a vice president to differentiating himself from Mr. Bush to responding to the turmoil in Iraq.

Democrats warn that such a strategy [taking few chances] entails risks of its own, banking on the proposition that Americans would be willing to fire an incumbent during war time and replace him with someone they know little about. “I don’t think anybody in their right mind is going to run for president on a strategy of `people hate the other guy and that’s enough for our guy to win,’ ” said Douglas Sosnik, the White House political director for President Bill Clinton.

Mr. Kerry said in an interview that he could not win the presidency by relying on the continuing misfortunes at the White House.

Sure, I agree. But if he doesn’t take it to the President and distinguish himself clearly from him, then why should anyone vote for Kerry?

Much of Mr. Kerry’s recent behavior has been that of a candidate who is inclined, at least for now, to take the easier road. They’ve basically made the strategic decision not to attack,” said one foreign policy expert advising the Kerry campaign. “Their polls have told them that they should let events take their course, let Bush wallow in their own problems, and that Kerry would suffer from going on the attack.”

I think Kerry’s got to remember what Dean did to him in the primaries. Dean stood for something and people responded. Only when Dean pushed Kerry’s back to the wall and threatened his political demise did Kerry get off his duff and start sounding like a man who had the vision and energy necessary to win a general election.

Right now, Kerry sounds like pre-Dean and I don’t like what I’m hearing–or not hearing, as the case may be.

tags ,

Comments (2)

New York Times Slums Its Way Through Blog World

I'm not sure why this is but...much of the New York Times coverage of the blogging phenomenon is querulous and condescending. It sounds a bit like the author is slumming through an alien world he or she doesn't fully understand and doesn't fully approve of. For a newspaper that gets right so many of the subjects it covers, NYT coverage of blogging is generally superficial and sadly lacking. Let's take Kate Hafner's For Some, the Blogging Never Stops in today's Times. Ostensibly, the article's subject is blogging as addiction or obsession. Hafner interviews bloggers who've blogged so obsessively that it's impacted or damaged their personal or work lives. In itself, this might be a worthy ...

Comments (1)

Sopranos‘ Death of Adriana Deeply Disturbing

I found Long-Term Parking, Episode 64 to be deeply disturbing, even more so than the usually disturbing Sopranos episodes. In fact, it reminded me of the great Scorcese mob pictures like Good Fellas in which the evil perpetrated by the characters is presented neutrally with absolutely no moral perspective as most Hollywood movies would provide. It makes for a vertiginous & troubling viewing experience. With this episode, we saw almost all the characters at some of their worst, most conniving behavior. I was amazed that Tony & Carmela reconciled with so little emotional 'foreplay.' Nothing in previous episodes prepared us for the possibility ...

Comments (2)

‘Jerusalem, 1967,’ Yehuda Amichai

On Yom Kippur 5728, I donned Dark holiday clothing and walked to Jerusalem's Old City. I stood for quite a while in front of the kiosk shop of an Arab, Not far from Shchem (Nablus) Gate, a shop full of buttons, zippers and spools of thread Of every color; and snaps and buckles. Brightly lit and many colored like the open Holy Ark. I said to him in my heart that my father too Owned a shop just like this of buttons and thread. I explained to him in my heart about all the decades And the reasons and the events leading me to be here now While my father's shop burned there and he is buried here. When I concluded it was the hour of N'eilah ("locking the gates"). He ...

Comments (1)

Israel’s Justice Minister Decries Rafah Incursion

For those of you who've never been involved in the barroom brawl better known as Israeli politics, let me give you a sense of what it's like. For those Israelis who are, like me, to the left of hard right forces in Israeli politics, listening to cabinet ministers talk and watching Knesset debates is a cross between watching an especially contentious edisode of Crossfire and watching Bill O'Reilly stomp on his "Commie pinko" (i.e. all those whose views he finds distasteful) interviewees. In short, there's no home for the meek or mild there. Even centrist or left of center political figures political figures who wish to make a mark within the mainstream electorate have to present ...

Comments

New York Times’ David Brooks: Sharon Sycophant?

This week's award for worst journalism on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes to David Brooks for his howlingly bad Finally, Good News in Mideast. The views of commentators like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly distress and offend me deeply due to their extreme doctrinal nature. But Brooks distresses & offends me because he attempts to come across as an eminently reasonable (and moderate) pundit, which he is not by any means. In trying to figure out what editorial niche the Times thinks he's filling, I'm guessing he's supposed to be a young version of Bill Safire. The old geezer probably is going to retire at some point (isn't he like 104 or something?) and they want a ...

Comments (1)

« Previous entries